November 20, 2010

I'm working on the thesis that such video does not exist. Please disprove it if you can. I came up with this video, which is interesting for a lot of reasons. Napolitano appears at 1:22 and is laughably unconvincing:

(Most of the video is about San Mateo County's Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe threatening to prosecute for sexual assault. Love the name "Wagstaffe" in this context.)

127 comments:

I heard her defending it. Her basic argument is that technology in this area has advanced tremendously in the last twenty years but airport security has not kept up. In her view it is unconscionable to allow this, therefore investments in upgrades must be made. Argumentum ad Novitam. She failed to discuss why system-wide scanners were the best of all security systems nor question their use in the first place.

Chip points out the mind control technique of always posing the wrong question that admits only of the desired answer as a pick between the lesser of two evils. The right question is how does this defeat terrorists that fly. That question requires the true answer that what they do now is USELESS. Using this play acting and electronic junk means that AlQaeda will win every time.

I'm searching for video of Janet Napolitano doing a decent job of ANYTHING. She's just another arrogant, rude, clueless know-nothing, but is oh-so-smarter-than-the-rest-of-us types who infest the Obama Administration.

Well, here is one thing that she has done a decent job of -- ensuring that the excitement of the Tea Party continues on. There was a grave danger of complacency after the big electoral victory. But folks like J. Napo will make sure that people are still boiling mad come 2012.

Why don't they just come out and admit that the TSA is a bunch of high school dropouts and Ward Churchill wannabees who resent all the people who can afford to fly and intend on giving them as hard a time as they can?

Ann Althouse said...

Love the name "Wagstaffe" in this context.

And I'll bet that if you wag your staffe at them (even though ladies have a small and hard to see staffe) to prove you have nothing to hide, they'll arrest you for frivolous pat-down.

PS I'll bet Big Sis has someone in the family tree named Gamelin or Weygand.

I also saw part of a clip of this guy Pistole before a Congressional committee, and I got the impression he had petty much told them he did not care much what they thought of it, he was going to do it anyway?

The new procedures are arbitrary and capricious. The laws which they claim allow TSA molestations are vague and incomprehensible.

These searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the Barack Obama regime cannot search you without probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nowhere in the Constitution did our founding fathers write that unreasonable searches are permissible if you purchase a ticket from Delta Air Lines.

Barack Obama is again violating the Constitution. Democrats have violated their oaths of office and they all should be removed from office.

Every TSA agent performing these unreasonable and illegal searches is guilty of conspiracy in these crimes and should, one day, be held to account for their complicity.

Osama bin Laden is not hiding in the panties of an American 10-year-old girl - or her aged grandmother - and the Barack Obama regime should stop using that as an excuse for allowing its pervert jackboots to feel up our children.

The Underwear Bomber Case (which the Obama regime is using as a causus belli for these airport molestations):

On November 11, 2009 British intelligence officials sent the United States a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to Anwar al-Awlaki, pledging to support Muslim jihad.

On November 19, 2009 Abdulmutallab's father reported to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son's "extreme religious views."

Acting on the report, the suspect's name was added in November 2009 to the U.S..'s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.

It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name No Fly List, nor was his U.S. visa revoked by Hillary Clinton.

Abdulmutallab was not added to that database because of incompetence at the Department of Homeland Security run by Janet Napalitano.

The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.

He was allowed by TSA to board a flight without a pat-down but with a valid Visa and a bomb in his underwear, which he detonated on board the aircraft.

And the response to these acts of lunacy by Barack Obama is to order his agents to molest your children at the airport in the name of political correctness - because, you know, they COULD be potential terrorists and we need to make sure these children aren't carrying bombs in their vaginas.

I might be ok with it if I trusted the government and this administration more, but I don't. I can see that any administration has high pressure to not allow another attack, and when you think you have a tool at your disposal that will greatly increase the odds... fine.

But has there been a good discussion of continuing to use judgment (targeting shifty and nervous Muslim-types...also a useful tool?)

Maybe this is more like the Arizona immigration, Civil RIghts Voting DOJ, and DREAM act things.

Let's vastly expand the size and scope of government, redistribute if necessary and come up with a highly inefficient, potentially intrusive catch-all solution.

We've been headed this way for years with the unwieldy Homeland Security bunch.

The only time I've ever encountered that name was in a movie. It was an Alec Guinness film titled Mutiny (American tile Damm the Defiant! 1962) about a mutiny aboard a British frigate in 1797. The film opens with a press gang raiding the streets of Spithead. The gang breaks in on a drunken party and seizes a young man dressed in fine clothes. The young man, a rather delicate fellow called Percival Palliser Wagstaffe, protests his "compulsory enlistment" on the grounds of being a gentleman. The sadistic first officer (played by Dirk Bogarde) disproves Wagstaffe's pretension by tricking him into claiming an non-existent Admiral Wagstaffe as a cousin. It turns out that Wagstaffe had been reading for the bar before his impressment and he uses the skills he has acquired to help the mutineers draft their petition of grievances. It's a pretty good movie with a great cast.

"... I can see that any administration has high pressure to not allow another attack, and when you think you have a tool at your disposal that will greatly increase the odds... fine."

Except these won't do that.

These devices would not have detected the type of bomb that Abdullahmuttab carried (to a scanning device, his bomb would have looked like regular old fecal material.)

And since he carried the bomb up his anus, a hand molestation would also not have detected it.

Look, this has NOTHING to do with security. Abdullahmuttab the Underwear Bomber had a VALID US visa when he entered the United States.

If our incompetent government had wanted to protect us from this Muslim terrorist, it could easily have rejected and revoked his travel visa.

But they didn't do that. They LET him scot free onto the aircraft AFTER they KNEW he was a potential Muslim terrorist. He didn't even get a pat down or secondary screening. He was deliberately allowed onto the aircraft by the Barack Obama regime.

None of this activity has anything to do with stopping Muslim terror.

It has to do with making the lines move along faster so raises can be handed out, and big donations the manufacturer of these devices have paid the Obama regime to no-bid purchase and install them.

It's plain old Chicago-style pay-to-play corruption - writ large.

Only this time, they're probably going to inflict cancer on you if you go through these devices enough times (they've never had long-term FDA testing to see if they cause cancer).

It seems to me that all of Obama's cabinet appointees, with the exception of Robert Gates, and he is a holdover from the Bush Administration, are remarkably weak. Not just that I disagree with them and don't like what they say, but they all seem to have been promoted way beyond their level of competence and have that "deer in the headlights" look about them. Just think about it - Timmy "Turbotax" at Treasury, Ken Salazar at Interior gives meaning to John McCain's quip about "all hat and no cattle!" Ray LaHood at Transportation makes Norm Mineta look great, Kathleen Sebelius at HHS wants to send us into the countryside for reeducation, and on it goes.I don't think Jesus Christ Superstar could do much with a misfoster like the Homeland Security Dept., but Janet Napolitano?

I've been kinda busy, but I intend to travel a lot next year. My junk is suddenly very excited about this. Usually they all sleep though the process, but they are very animated about traveling now. You should see their reaction as we watch these TSA reports together.

As long as we continue to insist that as many Irish nuns get strip searched as Hajib wearers, you can't convinc me that we are allocating correctly.

We can afford some PC in some things, but not in defense or security.

We need to profile. period. Every worker who interacts with the public profiles based on a dozen factors, race, age, gender, enthicity being four. Get some retired NYC street cops and put them at the beginning of the rope line and let them greet and ask questions. By the time the passengers get up to the screeners, I bet the retired cops can flag those needing a bit extra looking at.

That is not to say that we shouldn't occasionally search some 70y/o nun, but the smart play is to focus on the people that resemble the other people that have been blowing planes up....

and yeah, sooner or later, AQ will react and start recruiting 70y/o blonde Swedish women. Go ahead and let them. Today AQ networks are hard to penetrate because of cultural, religious and ethnic barriers that make it hard to infiltrate and easy for them to operate.

If they have to reach outside their normal recruiting pool and go for Swedes, then their costs go up and they are more likely to pick up a double agent. In other words, make them react to us for a change...

Traditionalguy wrote:The right question is how does this defeat terrorists that fly. That question requires the true answer that what they do now is USELESS. Using this play acting and electronic junk means that AlQaeda will win every time.

You say that but what are you basing that on? We do know that when they dind't hav these technologies in place someone got a weapon hidden in their underpants on board.A pertinent question would be, if they have a capabilty that allows them to see under peoples clothes, will it detect weapons (not all weapons but some or many or most). Then the question is if there is such a capability do you learn more from using that or from not using that?At the most basic level, if I have a weapon strapped to my shoulder and this technology can see that weapon and they are able to get that out of my shoulder strap (assuming it shouldn't be brought on board, then doesn't it work? You can argue that the technology simply doesn't work, but then the TSA could say we found x number of weapons on people using the capabilities so obviously it does work. Are you saying that they can't find those weapons? ARe you similarly going to say that x ray machines cannot find anything in bags?I would think the facts point to the evidence that this WILL find weapons (not in all cases but in many MORE cases than if they didn't have the technology). The next question is, even if it is effective,is the cost of using it worth the benefit? And here you might make some arguments that may or may not be relevenant. But to say this technology doesn't work or is useless is simply not accurate. What's useless is not having a way to check under someone's clothes and letthing them get on board a plane. If there is a better solution, (and don't say "profiling" because that is the catch all phrase for doing the thing that works, whatever that is, which is not this and not a real answer) then by all means tell the TSA.This techonlogy is not useless unless you can show that 9 times out of ten it doesn't find what it's supposed to. Can you show that?

Drill: You are right, but the TSA is not about security. It is a nationwide Kabuki theater meant to show that we are convinced that a terrorist is as likely to be a businessman in a suit or a five year old child or a grandmother from Iowa or a huge fat guy from Mississippi or a twenty seven year old freshly shaved chap from Yemen newly arrived from Brussels. Because we are a nation of (stupid) laws and fairness.

"This year alone, the use of advanced imaging technology has led to the detection of over 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told FoxNews.com. The TSA would not disclose exactly what those items were, but it said they included weapons like ceramic knives and various drugs -- including a syringe filled with heroine hidden in a passengers underwear.

Isn't that wonderful? 130 items. One Hundred and Thirty. It is the middle of November. 130 items found this year. Terrific.

Meg Mclain was on the radio and accused the TSA of singling her out when she tried to avoid the scanners and then keeping her handcuffed to a chair for an hour. The TSA actually released the tape. And in fact she was only kept for 15 minutes, and at no time was she handcufffed, and it didn't look like the TSA workers were at al unprofessional towards her. SHe's crying but it's more that she was incensed at her perceived injustice than waht they actually did (ie her crying was a product of her working herself up into a lather rather than because the TSA was being exceptionally mean to her).

What's interesting though is that they show her sitting on the chair for about ten minutes while the TSA goes about it's business and in the background about thirty to fourty people go through the scanners behind her. And it's extremely quick and orderly and simply involves someone standing in a box with their arm raised, and then standing on a line for another thirty seconds. In and out in two minutes after then getting their bags.Now someone mentioned that the TSA only has limited resources, but isn't this the reason they are going this route? Because its quick and easy and shows them enough info very quickly to allow someone to get on a plane or not get on a plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQp6V8dx7A(she comes in about the minute mark).What seems like it takes longer is the long interview process with the irate customer. And what customers are going through doesn't look like it's all that invasive or traumatizing. So it's quick, efficient and harmless. What's the argument against it?

No, we're just a nation that has been stupidly duped into allowing Democrats to run things.

The good news is that we can fix that by electing people who aren't complete fucking morons. And then outlawing public employee unions so that we can fire these corrupt and incompetent Democrats.

Unfortunately, we'll have to let the Obama Junta molest our children for two years so they can protect their Dear Leader politically once al Queda actually strikes us again.

This is all about the "We did everything we could" narrative Democrats will use once someone else with a valid US visa, who we've been warned about, somehow manages to get on a plane and detonate a bomb even though we had ample warning the fruitcake was a nutbag because the CIA are a bunch of fucking dickheads.

Michael wrote:Isn't that wonderful? 130 items. One Hundred and Thirty. It is the middle of November. 130 items found this year. Terrific.

Also, were those 130 items all from terrorists? So then doesn't it stand to reason that there are threats beyond terrorism that this may be applied to? If we are melrely assuming that terrorism is a threat then we profile just for terrorism, all those weapons brought on bought not for terrorism would be ignored to. I don't want those weapons on board either (unless the person bringing the weapon on board has a reason for doing so).

jr565: It might have but it didn't Yes but the list of 130 items did not include a bomb. It did not include anything that could bring down an airplane. Nothing. Read this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview?click=pm_latest

Drill: If you fly as much as I do you have no fear at all of someone who has slipped on with a knife or a razor. People are in no mood for that shit and anyone trying something would have the living shit beaten out of them. We should all remember that the third plane did not reach its target. People w/ a lot less information than we have today deduced the danger and took down the plane. Today, the hijackers would be begging to stop the beating. The 130 items mentioned pose no threat: even if all 130 were on the same plane and in the hands of a madman the good people of America would tear him limb from limb.

New Hussein Ham wrote:It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name No Fly List, nor was his U.S. visa revoked by Hillary Clinton.

Abdulmutallab was not added to that database because of incompetence at the Department of Homeland Security run by Janet Napalitano.

The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.

He was allowed by TSA to board a flight without a pat-down but with a valid Visa and a bomb in his underwear, which he detonated on board the aircraft.

it's all very complicated and involves failures of multiple agencies and multiple databases? And certanly they SHOULD have cauught it. But as you show, on agency didn't give info to another agency, he was put in one database and not another.the NTCT didn't check to see wheter his visa was valid etc etc. and then local secuirty didnt give him a pat down. Was everyone who was incompetent a democrat in all the agencies? Whatever happened, info didn't get to the right place at the right time for whatever reason, so it wouldn't trigger the alarms when he stepped into the airport. Don't blame the TSA for that. What they have responsibility for is the immediate security risk of a passenger getting on board a specific plane.And they didn't do a simple pat down. It would be like bouncer not checking someones bag and letting him into a club and then he pulls out a machine gun and kills fifteen people. A pat down should be the most basic security measure local security can do. and it should at the very least be a good enough pat down that it would find something in your pants.All that happened is that TSA looked at the incident and saw that the security flaw on their end (leaving aside all the other inter agency stuff beyond their control) was that they dind't give him a pat down. So then introducing scanners and a pat down is their way of rectifying that situation.THe guy wasn't patted down, they realze the error of their ways, going forward they will pat people down (or use a scanner) so that the issue doens't occur again.Unless you want to argue that they still shouldnt pat people down, even though they know the last time they didn't a catastrophe nearly occured then you have to agree with the pat down or find an alternative that would work in its place that was as effective.

"The 130 items mentioned pose no threat: even if all 130 were on the same plane and in the hands of a madman the good people of America would tear him limb from limb."

You know what the real threat is? Incompetent Democrats.

They allowed Abdullahmuttab to get on the aircraft with the willing approval of Hillary Clinton and the State Department ... which issued and refused to revoke his valid Visa even after they were warned he was a terrorist and even after his name was placed on the TIDE watchlist.

Your government - the corrupt Obama Regime - put Abdullahmuttab on that aircraft and endangered the lives of every person flying with him.

And they did it deliberately.

Now that they've scared you sufficiently ... they want to rub your daughter's vagina at the airport. They want to feel your son's penis to make sure he's not a Muslim terrorist.

That's their solution to their incompetence ... molestation of American women and children.

If you fly as much as I do you have no fear at all of someone who has slipped on with a knife or a razor. People are in no mood for that shit and anyone trying something would have the living shit beaten out of them. We should all remember that the third plane did not reach its target. People w/ a lot less information than we have today deduced the danger and took down the plane. Today, the hijackers would be begging to stop the beating. The 130 items mentioned pose no threat: even if all 130 were on the same plane and in the hands of a madman the good people of America would tear him limb from limb.

if they could get to him before he got his weapon or bomb off. Which is no guarantee. But is that how you want to secure airplanes? Assume that passengers will act as security guards? You're going to leave the safety of your life and family to passengers on a plane. How do you know what item is on the plane? How do you know that a passenger will be close enough to overtake him. if your family member was on baord and a terrorist was able to get his weapon off and took down the plane, and then it turned out that all security had to do was pat the guy down and they probably would have found the weapon, wouldn't you have wanted to have them do that which would find the weapon so that your family member wasn't killed in a plane? C'mon. That is the most basic level of security.If you're the president and you're attending the an important meeting security is not going to assume that the president should be able to take down the perp. THEY are responsible that noone gets near the president. If they let a threat get passed because they didn't practice BASIC security they should not be working in security.

Michael wrote: It might have but it didn't Yes but the list of 130 items did not include a bomb. It did not include anything that could bring down an airplane. Nothing.

So what? that just means that a person wasn't bringing a bomb on board a plane at that moment. There is no guarantee that the following month they would find exactly 130 items none of which would bring down airplanes. They might find 200 items 3 of which will bring down an airplane, or 50 items all of which will bring down airplanes. How do you know what they're going to find this week or next week or next year. Should they assume that because they found 130 items in this past year none of which could bring down an airplane that that is what they'll find every year? And they also DIDN'T find a few items that COULD have brought down an airplane becaues they dindn't yet have the system in place that would find those things. So you could potentially add them to the list of items found that WOULD bring down a plane. But that's irrelevant. The scans and patdowns find items. Items that wouldn't be found otherwise.

New Hussein wrote:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nowhere in the Constitution did our founding fathers write that unreasonable searches are permissible if you purchase a ticket from Delta Air Lines.

Except what is an unreasonable search and seizure when it comes to flying on an airplane. Is making someone walk through a metal detector reasonable or unreasonable? Considering they've had metal detectors at airines you'd have to say its reasonable under law.

"But is that how you want to secure airplanes? Assume that passengers will act as security guards?"

That is exactly the security we have right not. Everything else that your so impressed with is not designed to make flying safe, it is designed to make you FEEL that SOMETHING is being done and there for make you feel safe. Seems to be working for you. For everyone else, not so much.

So what? that just means that a person wasn't bringing a bomb on board a plane at that moment. There is no guarantee that the following month they would find exactly 130 items none of which would bring down airplanes

I think the so what test requires asking these 2 questions.

Those 130 items didn't come from the amnesty bucket, they were found on people or their bags so:

1. how many of the 130 people were arrested as the result of the item. That provides a proxy for the severity of the breach?, and

2. how many of te 130 were connected to you know... Man causers of Disasters...?

If you dont arrest or at least put the person on a list afterward, I have a sense that the 130 were fingernail files and wine bottle openers...

Napolitano is never convincing about anything. Everytime I hear her speak, I wonder if she is all there. I remember she was (duly) called "brilliant" by the press when she won the Gov's house in AZ (all Democrats are "brilliant" of course) but to me she seems slow, empty-headed, goofy, incompetent and sometimes a little, dare I say it, lacking in mental development.

Jeff wrote:That is exactly the security we have right not. Everything else that your so impressed with is not designed to make flying safe, it is designed to make you FEEL that SOMETHING is being done and there for make you feel safe. Seems to be working for you. For everyone else, not so much.

So give me specifics that are REAL security that would make you safe. Do x ray machines that let them check bags make you safe or safer? Lets take two examples. one they check your bag with an x ray machine. Two they throw the bag on board and no one checks it at all. Which makes you safer? Having someone check your bag or not check your bag. What makes you safer, having someone walk through a metal detector or not walk through a metal detector. Show id at the check point or not have a check point?

Those 130 items didn't come from the amnesty bucket, they were found on people or their bags so:

1. how many of the 130 people were arrested as the result of the item. That provides a proxy for the severity of the breach?, and

2. how many of te 130 were connected to you know... Man causers of Disasters...?

If you dont arrest or at least put the person on a list afterward, I have a sense that the 130 were fingernail files and wine bottle openers...

Why does what was found in those 130 cases have any bearing on whether it effectively finds things? You are simply looking at a specific 130 items and then determining what is found That doesnt mean that therefore you will always find those 130 things. If a lot of those 130 things end up being misdemeanors and not actual terrorist bombs, then so what? The vast majority of time people will not be bringing bombs on board a plane. YOu have to be ready for the times where they do. If a company gets email with a billion zipped files in a year, the vast majority of them may be harmless. But you still have to have safety measures for the time when that one email constains a virus that can bring down your system. And you'll have to find them the same way, by looking using the same tools. Is the tool finding things? Then its effective and it works.

So, I checked with a friend of mine who works in the commercial aviation field (and would know the answer to my question) - I asked and he confirmed that after putting the passengers through their 'screening', they then load cargo that has NOT been fully checked out right into the cargo hold under these poor passengers.

Napolitano can't explain why in the past two weeks, they needed to add the grope. That is probably because it was added to enforce compliance to their pet project, the scanner. A scanner that may or may not be dangerous radiation. A scanner that is not supposed to store your naked image, except that it does.

And now since the grope only succeeded in making people angrier, they are threatening a fine and/or arrest; which will only piss people off more. She is a fool.

She should have continued to allow people uncomfortable with the scanner to opt out, and take the old style, back-of-the-hand pat down. Instead she reached around too far.

And now for many people, her actions have become symbolic of what is wrong with this administration; that they don't care about the opinions of the people they are supposed to serve.

BTW, here is the article that lilybart referenced in her comment above, as a link . It's a short, interesting read.

"So give me specifics that are REAL security that would make you safe."

How about revoking the visas of radical Muslims when they're brought to the attention of the State Department by their own fathers?

Is that fucking specific enough for you moron? Our brain-dead Democrat government can't even manage to get that right.

Abdullamuttab was allowed to fly into the United States by Hillary Clinton, which granted him permission to do so AFTER they knew he was a Muslim bent on carrying out jihad.

These bullshit molestations going on in our nation's airports have nothing whatsoever to do with finding bin Laden or al Queda. bin Laden isn't at LAX. He's in fucking Pakistan. al Queda is in Saudi Arabia..

This bullshit security theatre is merely the Obama junta trying to make you forget they let in Abdullamuttab with a valid US travel visa AFTER they already knew he was a terrorist.

Your 10-year-old daughter is not a terrorist. So why is your government molesting her?

Just Lurking wrote:BTW, here is the article that lilybart referenced in her comment above, as a link . It's a short, interesting read.

Cue jr565 knee-jerk rebuttal in 3...2...1......

His article contradicts itself. For one he says that there is no solution for an Al Qaeda type attack. If that's the case those arguing against the TSA being incompetent is bullshit beucase as he says, you can't stop an attack like that. In fact, why even have security? If you can't stop an attack then profiing wouldn't work beause dedicated Al Qaeda members will get around profiling. So why hire him as a security expert?But then he says that these types of screenings don't work, but that the arrest of the underwear bomber was a success beause as he says:

And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work. This is what success looks like. Stop bellyaching!

So, screening for superficial guns and bombs in fact makes it harder for him to bring on superficial guns and bombs and he has to resort to some outlandish means of atack. Well that's the exact point of using a full body SCREEN. It makes it harder for him to bring in superficial guns and bombs. If the lower resolution screens would be effective at deterring many attacks why would a hgher resolution screen (one that provides even more data). The mere threat of the regular screen made him resort to putting a bomb on his leg, why would having to walk through a screen that shows things attached to his leg somehow produce less of a result. And I'll also note the pre 9/11 security didn't actually stop 9/11 either. So I don't know why he's still peddling outdated security measures as if they're more effective.If you're going to suggest that screens work, then you shouldn't also suggest that screens are not effective. They either are or they aren't. And if they are, then screens that give you more data are probably more effective than screens that give you less. Like a metal detector will detect metals only. So if you can build a gun out of plastic you wont catch it. But a screen would see the shape of the gun (theoretically) and allow them to get it out of your hands. Somehow something which finds more, yields less apparently.

And for those who believe the grope was added due to intelligence about an increased threat, consider this: if they had such intelligence, and were still unwilling to employ intelligent screening methods, like profiling, to catch the terrorist, but were instead only relying on random searches of innocent civilians to find the weapon, then they are not worth what we are paying them, and we are not any safer.

If there is an increased threat, I would hope they are profiling. In which case, they could still chose to continue to use the old patdown method, for those who opted out of the scanner, and use the groping only in cases where there was true probable cause- ie: the person fit the profile of a terrorist. Problem is, this is not PC.

So their new grope everyone policy has the double advantage of enforcing compliance to the scanner, and is useful as a PC stance to mask the fact that they profiling, and will need to use the grope on suspected terrorists. They made the decision to grope granny rather than offend the professionally offended.

New Hussein Ham wrote:How about revoking the visas of radical Muslims when they're brought to the attention of the State Department by their own fathers?

Is that fucking specific enough for you moron? Our brain-dead Democrat government can't even manage to get that right.

are you any differnt than the lefty harpies screaming about how BUsh should have KNOWN that they were going to attack us because they got the memo that AL Qaeada was determined to attack us? Seems like whoever's in charge attacks keep coming through. ANd if you look at the history you'll see that multiple agencies dropped the ball, if they ever had the ball to begin with. The fact that this agency forgot to tell that agency and that agency didn't put the person on the terrorist watch list and someone forgot to check his passport at another agency should point out to you that if you are going to take the top down approach and say we should profile and use terrorist no fly zones that such things rely on intel, and intel is faulty and flawed. And having info pass through the various agencies will inevitably cause varos snafus to occur simply because that's what happens when you inseminate info amongst organizations with their own bueracracies. It's not just govt by the way, but business too. So I take it as a given that when we look back at what went wrong we'll see x dropped the ball and y dropped the ball and z dropped the ball. So then, don't rely on that as your only means of dealing with threats since it's flawed.Concentrate on the day of the attack. I don't ultimately care HOW the flaw occured that this guys visa wasn't checked properly (well I do care, but not in the context of the immediate problem). And that's not something that the TSA will know about (because the other agencies that are supposed to weed out this guy before he got to the airport didn't do their job) nor is it their job to address. Their job is simple. SOmeone is on the line and is about to board a plane do you let him on. Anything else is irrelevant. So then, what tools does the guy on the ground to deal with that immediate concern. Period!If later on you go back and said we screwed up here and here and here, then fix al of it. But don't say that because they couldn't figure out his visa we shouldn't have to pat him down when he's about to board a plane.No, that's the security guards sole job. To not let stuff that shouldn't be on a plane get on a plane. And if they don't have the tools to do that, then they need to be given the tools to do that.

Barack Obama:"At this point, TSA in consultation with counterterrorism experts have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing.

You Lie!

Revoking Abdullahmuttab's visa would have prevented the Christmas day bombing.

Interestingly, Obama acknowledged that as president he does not have to have his vulva felt, or go through any other normal security procedures at airports since he's above the laws the rest of us are subjected to.

So, I checked with a friend of mine who works in the commercial aviation field (and would know the answer to my question) - I asked and he confirmed that after putting the passengers through their 'screening', they then load cargo that has NOT been fully checked out right into the cargo hold under these poor passengers.

Security Theater.

I'm a commercial pilot and that's true. The current system doesn't require that everyone/everything on the airplane is screened. It only requires that bypassing security not occur within sight of the flying public. Why do theater if no one can see it right?

Just Lurking wrote:nd for those who believe the grope was added due to intelligence about an increased threat, consider this: if they had such intelligence, and were still unwilling to employ intelligent screening methods, like profiling, to catch the terrorist, but were instead only relying on random searches of innocent civilians to find the weapon, then they are not worth what we are paying them, and we are not any safer.

Except Hussein Ham just went through the litany of all the info they had down the line which wasn't handled properly. So, doesn't that suggest that in fact they are doing stuff in the background but that it just wasn't effective in this case? They are checking peoples visas and putting them on the no fly zones and weeding out the terrorists. It's just that in this case, they screwed up. Expect screw ups. Which to me points to the fact that you can't JUST do the background stuff and the profiling, but have to cover all the bases. Which includes the background stuff and the local scans and pat downs. It's not going to stop everything, but you need security at all levels to weed out the threats. And the more the threat gets filtered down through the various levels the more likely it will be to stop it. But it's also possible that the threat will slip through all cracks. But at the very basic level you NEED security protocols that deal with the IMMEDIATE threat of someone getting on a plane and should that person get on a plane.

Tommy wrote:I'm a commercial pilot and that's true. The current system doesn't require that everyone/everything on the airplane is screened. It only requires that bypassing security not occur within sight of the flying public. Why do theater if no one can see it right?

So should the airlines do even less screenings? Would that make you feel safer? Why not simply throw the bags on the back of the plane and let people walk on your flight without even having to go through an xray machine? And why not keep your cockpit doors open?

Michael - "People w/ a lot less information than we have today deduced the danger and took down the plane. Today, the hijackers would be begging to stop the beating. The 130 items mentioned pose no threat: even if all 130 were on the same plane and in the hands of a madman the good people of America would tear him limb from limb."

I find Michaels attitude a lot more practical and realistic than jr565's, the latter thinking that it is imperative we detect any potential weapon or any piece of contraband by Any Means our Hero TSA policy-makers deem necessary:

Because -

1. Well, any knife or bag of pot found in the 130 "threatening or bad objects" the Heroes found "makes us all safer" by definition.

2. Despite locked cockpit doors and a planeload of people ready and willing to do anything to take a weapons wielding Islamoid down - jr565 trenchently (perhaps only in his opinion) observes that since the President is protected from weapons wielders by secret service and would not have to defend himself, it is "unfair" to ask passengers to personally do what the Presidents security detail enables him to avoid - personal self defense.

3. "What if the Islamoid hurts a family member with a weapon concealed in his underpants"?

Michaels answer implies that given the Islamoid's brains are in all likelihood crushed by a lawyer finally putting his laptop to constructive use or some other royally pissed off passenger realizing he can kill an enemy and pick up major societal creds for doing so? If a bystander is hurt - well, too bad. We are in war, and each person cannot have a secret service detail assigned. One hurt family member and one dead and mutilated Islamoid counts as a victory in war.

jr565's exortation that ANYTHING is justified if it increases safety one iota now butts (pun intended) up against the obvious threat - that has been used for 30 years in a major way to smuggle contraband and in at least in one high-profile attack (against the Saudi Minister of Intelligence) - yes, the butt-bomb!

Love to hear jr565's "anything is justified in the name of safety!" logic on that.Not only would vaginal searches and colonsocopies or high rad dose flouroscopies "eliminate the bomb threat" (only at airports and 100s of billions cost) - but jr565 might also explain that vaginal and colonoscopy searches applied wholesale might greatly benefit us from charging people with no intent of hijacking a plane with possession of contraband - guys who left a stray .22 shell in a travel bag, a woman smuggling heroin or gems she wanted to get past Customs concealed in her snatch.

So jr565, what is your objection to body cavity searches?The threat exists.The technology your "heroes" can use to implement searches exists.

jr565: I suppose you view yourself as some sort of "gadfly" but what do you think about all this? You have a knack for saying that it would be possible for someone to sneak an atom bomb on board or fight off pissed off passengers. But since you haven't been on a plane in God knows how long, what do you think we should be doing? You seem to think you can "punch holes" in every practical comment here, but what do you think? Or are you just a gadfly popping off with nonsense?

Cedarford: I believe that passengers actually did kill a guy that rushed the cockpit a year or so ago. I never followed what happened, if anything, to the passengers but I recall quite clearly that they killed a guy that fucked w/ the plane. No tsa involved.

Why not simply throw the bags on the back of the plane and let people walk on your flight without even having to go through an xray machine? And why not keep your cockpit doors open?

Well, as it is now...there are bags on the airplane that didn't go through screening, and there are people on the airplane that didn't go through screening...so I don't see the difference between allowing bags and people on without screening them and allowing bags and people on without screening them... The fact that there are loopholes available to someone with the time to learn them is the problem.

I think we should screen everyone and all the bags. The fact that we don't is why I think it's all theater. I don't think the new TSA procedures are helping though.

Speaking of security theater, isn't there a possibility that it would work that way in reverse in regards to terrorists? For example, the TSA could theoretically not even have digital scanners but merely say they do and make people walk through the box and get "scanned" when in effect nothing happens. But the threat of the scan finding something would preclude a terrorist from trying to put stuff there. He might overestimate the ability of the scanner to actualy detect what he's trying to hide thus make him less likely to try to hide things in places the scanner might find. Kind of like Star Wars and the Russians. We didn't even have the capabilities at the time, yet were able to get the Russians to bankrupt themseles dealing with the nonexistent threat.

jr565: Do you actually have any ideas? Do you really believe the airports are crawling with terrorists? Because they are not. 99 percent of the people on any given day are not even worth spending ten seconds on. The other one percent are fine too, they just act odd and draw attention and need a bit of further observation. The smallest bit of common sense could expedite security, improve security and air safety and end the sad theater we now have to endure. You don't fly, but if you did you would note that most of the time the TSA person does not compare the picture ID with the face or the face with the name. Most TSA people are busy chatting with each other. One TSA agent is assignmed the task of annoying the people in the line by shouting instructions over and over. Most of the people in the line have flown hundreds more flights than the TSA agent, have been through security many many more times. You should get out more, take a flight. Observe your government in action.

Michael wrote:I suppose you view yourself as some sort of "gadfly" but what do you think about all this? You have a knack for saying that it would be possible for someone to sneak an atom bomb on board or fight off pissed off passengers. But since you haven't been on a plane in God knows how long, what do you think we should be doing? You seem to think you can "punch holes" in every practical comment here, but what do you think? Or are you just a gadfly popping off with nonsense?

I don't think a lot of the comments are in fact practical. Practical is recognizing that people on the ground are going to need to be able to pat peple down before they get on airplanes and then finding out the best tools to give security guards so that they do their jobs and passengers aren't needlessly killed. And it would be possible for a terrorist to sneak a bomb (maybe not an atom bomb) aboard a flight because that's what just happened. So then the response, (the body scans) because the TSA recognizes that their existing protocols didn't deal with the problem of the guy getting a bomb on board in his underpants.

Michael wrote:Do you actually have any ideas? Do you really believe the airports are crawling with terrorists? Because they are not. 99 percent of the people on any given day are not even worth spending ten seconds on. The other one percent are fine too, they just act odd and draw attention and need a bit of further observation.

No, in most cases there aren't any terrorists in airlines just as most emails don't contain a virus that will destroy all your companies data. But if you are diligent about stopping that one email, then it wll get through and someone will click on it and your company will lose potentially millions of dollars of data. And then people will wonder why you didnt have a basic protocol that checked all email traffic so that your company didn't lose a million dollars worth of data. The cost of dealing with that minute threat before it becomes a huge catastrophe is extremely minor but if you have to deal with a catastrophe then the costs are enormous. So use whatever tools you ahve that are efficient and aren't TOO costly and come up with a protocol to deal with the treath.

New Hussein Ham wrote:10-year-old girls do not need t have their vaginas massaged by Obama's henchmen in order to make us safe - because 10-year-old girls are not hijacking aircraft. and flying them into buildings.

Lets say you have a 10 year old go through a metal detector now and the alarm goes off, then they give her the once over with the wand and the alarm goes off and she's taken all of the metal out of her pockets that she know of. Do you then say, well even though she's setting off metal alarms we'll still let her on board? How about a grandmom? This is not to say that these people are knowingly carying on bombs necessarily (they could have something planted on them by a terrorist unbeknownst to them for example) At a certain level you're going to have to acknowledge that pat downs are sometimes necessary, even for grandmoms or ten year olds or acknowledge that even if people set off metal detectors we should let them on planes. And then why bother with a metal detector at all since you're going to let people on regardless. And suppose you're a passenger and see people setting off metal detectors and then being ushered onto a plane, are you going to want to fly that plane? If you saw that and then heard that the plane blew up woudn't that be the equivalent of them not checking someones visa and letting him fly anyway? That's incompetence. That's as much political correctness as saying we shouldn't profile.

jr565: Then why doesn't the TSA screen us at the curb before we enter the airport. As you are well aware, given your experience with travel, there are huge groups of people in line to be screened. There is absolutely nothing to prevent one of your terrorists from filling their carryon to the brim with explosives and blowing up hundreds of people. Why is it necessary to get on an airplane? Why is it necessary to buy a ticket? Why is it necessary to elude the TSA? As you know from your own travel experience the line in front of security often holds several airplane loads of sheeplike people who could be easily blown up. Think about that Mr. Security expert. Answer me that.

Alex, I had to dig into the older post to find it but here's my response about the anal probes:

It wouldn't be practical to submit people to anal probes, and an anal probing is physically painful and takes a long time to perform. So they will not be able to go that far (and noone would seriously suggest that) However, what will morel likely happen is the will look to find a scanner that can see internally and then if it's not too invasive or causes cancer use that in the place of or in addition to what they use now. along with any other means of detecting a bomb. Maybe a sniffer dog would have a better chance of detecting something or maybe they could use an agent that can detect the compounds that are found in explosives. Perhaps the technology is not there yet. If there is no way to detect a bomb in someones rectum and people start blowing up planes with bombs in rectums and it became disruptive enough, they might alternately restrict muslims from flying or restrict flying to or from certain locations. While I can't say what technology they could use to find a bomb in your ass, I do know they have technology that can detect weapons or bombs on your person that are not visible to the naked eye, and they can see explosives in your shoes. And neither requires you to be anal probed, so then why not use the capabilities? The downside of using the capabilities would be the cost of using the capability. But as I mentioned there is very little downside to using a full body scan. (if it showed you fully naked and you could see your picture in hires then it would be more of a downside and I would say it's not worth it barring extenuating circumstances. If stepping through the scanner seriously increased your risk of dying of cancer, then of course they shoulnd't be used. And if it took hours for one person to be scanned, then it woulnd't be practical to use. None of which are the case though. So then, weigh the harm versus the benefit.

Michael wrote:Then why doesn't the TSA screen us at the curb before we enter the airport. As you are well aware, given your experience with travel, there are huge groups of people in line to be screened.

One reason is because screening people requires them to stand still so that we can get a good look at them and if youre walking through a terminal it's harder to do it. Furhter how are you going to do a massive screening on massive crowds miling about. Also, who's to say that they don't have screens of sorts already in place. I see security guards with guns and Im sure they have cameras eyeing the place looking for suspicious activity.

JR: And about your security advice on the area in front of security at airports? What prevents the wily terrorist from blowing hundreds to smithereens there, without buying a ticket, without having to elude the heroic TSA, without having to use chickenshit equipment but getting to use high grade explosives and lots of them?

Alex wrote:so is 100 planes go down due to rectal bombers THEN you'll finally acquiesce to Muslim profiling. But not until 100 planes get blown up.what would you do with the rectal bomber? Aside from nuke the middle east that is. If you're for "profiling" does said profiling include rectal exams for suspected Muslims?

So, JR, you are happy to have hundreds of people at an airport unprotected by the heroic TSA? You are happy to have terrorists save the cost of an airplane ticket and blow people to smithereens because you have no fucking imagination? Because you think people have to fucking STAND STILL to get screened?

Tell us. When is the last time you have been in a major metropolitan airport? Ever?

Michael wrote:JR: And about your security advice on the area in front of security at airports? What prevents the wily terrorist from blowing hundreds to smithereens there, without buying a ticket, without having to elude the heroic TSA, without having to use chickenshit equipment but getting to use high grade explosives and lots of them?

Your security expertise is needed.If they are attacked in front of the airlines they will then, after realizing there is a security hole do even more to make sure that they can't be attacked in front of their airlines again. They'll institute check points, and speed bumbs and put up guards who will check people as they're driving in. Whatever they do, it will make it that much harder to get into the airport.

JR: "Furhter how are you going to do a massive screening on massive crowds miling about."

Right. Now you are beginning to get it. You can't. So what is the point of screening people who are intent only on blowing up people on airplanes versus blowing up people on the ground in equal numbers and having the same horrible effect on air travel in the U.S.? Do you think it is imperative for a terrorist act to involve an airplane in order to disrupt air travel? Have you ever been in a large line waiting to go through security? Have you ever in your life?

Michael wrote:So, JR, you are happy to have hundreds of people at an airport unprotected by the heroic TSA? You are happy to have terrorists save the cost of an airplane ticket and blow people to smithereens because you have no fucking imagination? Because you think people have to fucking STAND STILL to get screened?

No you jackass I already said there are guards with machine guns. If you go into Penn Station you'll see military personnel with machine guns. And Penn Station is a train station. I said it would not be practical to do a scan of everyone in a terminal. But if they could scan everybody at once and the cost was minimal (cost equaling dollars, convenience, health effects) then why not? Where a scan is not practical they have other security measures to make sure that people don't attack the terminal like soldiers with guns and cameras. Should they have none of that? ANd I already said that I travelled a month ago and twice this year (but that prior to that I hadn't travelled by plane in a long while)

Michael wrote:Do you think it is imperative for a terrorist act to involve an airplane in order to disrupt air travel? Have you ever been in a large line waiting to go through security? Have you ever in your life?

read post above. And I already linked to the Meg Mclain incident with the footage of her being "detained" by the TSA. And in the background you can see these disruptive scans that are snarling traffic. And while she's sittign there more than 30 people walk through, each in under two minutes and then go about their way. If anyone was disrupting anything it was her and her histrionics. TSA agents had to stop what they were doing to deal with the crazy passenger.The scans allow for a way for security guards to do a through searching of potential weapons under your clothes with little impact on your staying on a line. At any case, you'd still have to stand on the line to put your bag through the x ray machine and for you to walk through the metal detector (though I suppose we should do away with those). If you subtract that wait time, then the scanners add what, 30 seconds? I provided the link, why don't you watch it? Here I'll describe it for you. You walk into a box, you raise yoru arms (another reason why the scans wouldn't work en masse, who walks around with their arms raised in the terminal) for ten to fifteen seconds. Then you walk to a line and stand there for ten seconds. Then you move to the left and pick up the bin that had your bag which was just checked by an xray machine. The end.

Dude I live in NYC. If you go into Penn station terminal look around and you will see they have guys dressed in camouflage and who have machine guns. I'm serious. I haven't been there in months but I used to have to take the LIRR everyday. And everyday you would see the guards there with machine guns.

Michael wrote:Right. Now you are beginning to get it. You can't. So what is the point of screening people who are intent only on blowing up people on airplanes versus blowing up people on the ground in equal numbers and having the same horrible effect on air travel in the U.S.?

But you could make the same argument about why they check your bags when you walk through security to get on a plane as opposed to making everyone including visitors who aren't flying but in the terminal check their bags. Is it your argument that the airlines shouldn't in fact check any bags or put any bags in through the x ray machines?What is your position on xray machines anyway. Useful tool, or security theater?

jr565: "But you could make the same argument about why they check your bags when you walk through security to get on a plane as opposed to making everyone including visitors who aren't flying but in the terminal check their bags."

Yes. You could.

Xrays of bags is fine.

Xrays of checked bags is fine.

Pretending that grandma and grandpa are a threat is not fine.

Pretending that little kids are a threat is not fine.

Pretending that every person is a potential terrorist is not fine.

This is not a complicated subject unless you are of your mind and believe the last sentence above. In which case I again urge you to pop out to LGA and get a job. You are perfect for it.

but why would we need to check Grandma's bags if we're assuming she's not a terrorist or a potential terrorist or that she is potentially hiding things in her bag? If we're going to assume she isn't in fact hiding anything, there 's no reason to make her put her bag through an xray machine or walk through a metal detector. Do we think grandma is packing?

And the question is why is xraying of bags fine? Do you think it's a valuable tool (because by scanning you will find things in peoples bags) or do think its security theater?If you think its a valuable tool, then wouldn't it make sense, that just as you can find things in bags that you couldn't by not cecking bags, that you similarly, using the same type of technology find something under someones shirt that you couldn' see by looking at them? Of the hundreds of thousands of bags xrayed every day, how many produce bombs and/or weapons? If the vast majority of times they look through bags they find things like nail clippers should they do away with checking your bags.Does making everybody check their bags not imply that the airlines are thinking we are trying to hide something (in our bags).

Pretending that every person is a potential terrorist is not fine.And similarly, why should we put ten year olds bags through x ray machines. We can't possibly think that they are actually packing weapons in there can we? They're ten years old. You're ok with treating ten year olds like criminals!

I figured. SO your brand of expert security is no baggage checks and xrays for anyone but muslims. Becuase nothing could possibly be smuggled on an airpane that would be considered dangerous by anyone other than a muslim.Now lets talk about profiling the scary muslims. Are you making exceptions for muslim grandmothers, muslim ten year olds, muslim women 20-30 year olds? And if a muslim 10 year old sets off an xray machine can we grope them and feel their vaginas? They are ten years old, but they are also muslims, and they are seting off an xray machine, so shouldn't we be able to give them a pat down (ie molest them). YOu talk about profiling, which I assume means, if you are suspicious (and all muslims are suspicious) you would be ok with enhanced pat downs and full body scans and baggage checks and anal probes maybe not anal probes) Similarly, can we do full body scans on muslims, and can the TSA ogle their naked bodies? Similarly for muslim women with breast cancer, can we examine their breast implants because they're muslims. Similarly, for muslim men or women with fake limbs, can we make them take off their limbs?Most suicide bombers are muslim teens and young adult males, but there are some muslim suicide bombers who are females. And then what about people who are muslim but who are hard to identify as muslim? Iike an african who is muslim but doens't have a muslim sounding name and who's muslim identity is unclear based on his passport. Is he suspicious our not suspicious?

Yes, we need so many more maroons like this guy to be TSA administrators and screeners. It is always so helpful to make pronouncements out of complete ignorance.

I've been through the new system. Ignore the porn and groping aspects. Focus entirely on the extra time.

It took the line that I was in about three to four times as long to get through.

About "two minutes" to get through, like the newcomer maroon here says? It was longer than that, but let's take that number for sake of argument. That works out to 30 people per hour. For a plane of 210 people, that's only seven hours to get everyone through security.

It takes a LOT LONGER to get through. First because you have to stand there for a while instead of zipping through a metal detector in two seconds. Then when you're done, they still take time to look you up and down. But, invariably, nearly everyone has not taken everything -- EVERYTHING -- out of their pockets, including non-metalic items, paper, handkerchief, etc., so they have to step back. Then they haven't taken their wallets out either. So then they go in and are standing there with a bunch of junk in their hands, and they are told to step back again because they didn't take their belt off -- which cannot simply be held or handed across, but has to go through the x-ray machine. So they go get a bin to put their belt through. Then finally, they stand there for several seconds and get through. But then, after, the TSA guy wants to look in your wallet. Add a few more seconds. Then you have to spend the time putting everything back into your pockets -- money, boarding pass, handkerchief, wallet, gum, etc. All told, you are lucky if it only adds an extra two minutes.

Two minutes per person adds up. It adds up fast. What used to take 10 minutes to get through has now taken you 30 minutes to get through. Didn't account for the extra time?? Missed your flight?? Too damn bad.

They are now saying be at the airport 90 minutes early. 90 MINUTES?? So, they admit that they expect that it will take you at least an hour to go through security. 90 minutes -- and that was BEFORE the holiday period.

Bender wrote:They are now saying be at the airport 90 minutes early. 90 MINUTES?? So, they admit that they expect that it will take you at least an hour to go through security. 90 minutes -- and that was BEFORE the holiday period.

And if you wanted to go through EL Al type security you'd have to get there 3 hours ealier. So do you not want El Al security?

If you check Mclain link i provided with the full body scans the whole scan itself takes 30 seconds. But if you add the time it takes to move from the line to the bin and pick up your bags and go through the xray portion it adds up to a few more minutes in total. But the scan itself is extremely quick. Look at the link and time 5 such scans in succession and see how long they take. Not long at all.

I don't need to check the link maroon. I HAVE ALREADY PERSONALLY BEEN THROUGH THE NEW SYSTEM. So, I should go look at some TSA propaganda to tell me that I'm wrong about what I personally know, that what I experienced did not really happen?

You know, you would make a lot more sense if you stopped talking out of your ass.

Michael, is it ok to pat down (molest) a ten year old muslim girl, or a muslim woman (who may be a suicide bomber) if she sets off a metal detector or if she doesn't. Or a muslim grandmom, or a muslim guy with a missing leg or a muslim woman (who may be a suicide bomber) with breast cancer. Just listing all the outrageous objections you guys have provided about how the TSA is treating women and children and grandmoms like criminals and moletsting them and touching their privates etc. Can we check muslim kids bags and make them walk through scanners.Beause muslims can be grandmoms and moms and 10 year olds. And if you have to pat them down you will be touching their privates. Can we do that to the scary muslims?I'm asking you because I would think that you would say yes.Those are the people we should be targeting and profiling and running the scans on. Only if you say yes you are saying you have no problems patting down ten year olds and women and grandmoms.But if you say no, then what are you expecting from profiling? Would it be your assertion that if a muslim woman set off an xray machine that we could never pat her down (er, molest her) because she's a woman, or 10 years old? Or we could never look at her breast because she had cancer? Or that a guy with a fake lake could never be looked at because he had a fake leg? Zawahiri lost his leg due to a bombing and he's also a hardened terrorist. If he were to bring a bomb on board a plane I'd imagine the first place he put it would be in his fake leg. Would your expert profiling make him take off his leg or not if youre not sure he's a terrorist? Who is being politically correct in all of this?I

Bender wrote:don't need to check the link maroon. I HAVE ALREADY PERSONALLY BEEN THROUGH THE NEW SYSTEM. So, I should go look at some TSA propaganda to tell me that I'm wrong about what I personally know, that what I experienced did not really happen?

You know, you would make a lot more sense if you stopped talking out of your ass.

Propaganda? It's a video feed of Mclain and her entire interaction with the TSA. Its not propaganda. But it is simply a video feed of a room over a period of time.Regardless of the propaganda value of the video itself the fact that it simpy shows the room and the actual full body scans over the period of time means that you can simply time the amount of time it takes to go thorugh the scanner in a ten minute period of time. I don't see how that could be propaganda. I don't have to use a TSA supplied watch I can simply use a stopwatch and count the seconds and then maybe average them together to get the average time it took. As can you.

Fen wrote:I find interesting that, while you defend the current PCBS based on the need for heightened security, you still manage to use El Al's more effective security as a negative motivator.

Something is not right here.

That was simply beause Bender was mad that the scanner added 90 minutes (90 minutes!) to the time it takes to get on a plane. I'm simply pointing out, regardless of the value of El Al's security that if you think taking 90 minutes longer is bad, taking 3 hours has to be even more outrageous. That's an additional 90 minutes!

"...But is that how you want to secure airplanes? Assume that passengers will act as security guards? You're going to leave the safety of your life and family to passengers on a plane. How do you know what item is on the plane? How do you know that a passenger will be close enough to overtake him."

Works pretty well for the rest of life: we don't live in a police state*, and we don't have a police officer accompanying us 24x7 trying to keep us safe as we go about our daily lives. What's so special about an airplane? On 9/11, we realized that there isn't, and that the government advice to "let the experts handle it" was a crock.

(And a friendly bit of advice: learn how to write <i> italics </i> for when you quote people; it's quite hard to follow your responses otherwise when you start out quoting somebody, your comment goes on for 5 paragraphs, but it's not clear when the quote stops and you start.)

------------------------*Oh, wait: I see you live in NYC. OK, not the absolute worst place in the country, as far as prohibiting the little people from having the tools of effective self-defense, but still pretty damned bad.

Kirk Parker wrote:orks pretty well for the rest of life: we don't live in a police state*, and we don't have a police officer accompanying us 24x7 trying to keep us safe as we go about our daily lives.

BUt even prior to the TSA turning into monsters we had a security system in place that made you walk through scanners and check your bags. Was that not a police state? Again, all you're saying is your idea of security should be there is no security at airports. What if we still had the security where you dind't have to take your shoes off. COuldnt you say, we don't live in a police state and we don't have a a police officer accompanying us 24x7 as we go about our daliy lives.Could'n't you say that about security anywhere? Why have bouncers at clubs? Why have x ray machines in court? Why have police officers? is anything security related not that police state you're raling against.

Even El Al, with all their infallible profiling that you want still has x ray machines, so still is a police state. And you still have to wait in even longer lines. Again, your idea of good security is NO security. ONly don't hold other people accountable when their flawed security doesn't keep your family safe.

Kirk wrote:Works pretty well for the rest of life: we don't live in a police state*, and we don't have a police officer accompanying us 24x7 trying to keep us safe as we go about our daily lives. What's so special about an airplane? On 9/11, we realized that there isn't, and that the government advice to "let the experts handle it" was a crock.

And since when is the airline YOUR airline. Why shouldn't a private business not be able to set security protocols to protect IT'S assets? They should be so cavalier as to let anyone on their multimillion dollar planes and cause havoc to their business beause of some unrealistic notion of security that works nowhere in the world?It's so nice that you're so cavalier about passengers security, yet I bet at your house you have locks on your doors, and if you own a business I bet you do your best to protect the assets of your company incluing implementing security protocols that your wrokers might not like because they protect your business from being compromised.

If you walk into any business in a big building they have things like security gates and if you don't have a card they have to get authorization to let you in. You can't simply go wherever you please. I suppose every instance of that security is simply a police state appartus because it incoveniences you that you can't go to any floor you want at any time?

THere is no security in buildings in washington DC?What would you think if you worked in a building that shared offices with other businesses and they made you start using an id card to check in and out of the building? Would you quit due to that private building forcing YOU to identify yourself? To be exposed to the least modicum of security? How about if they put up cameras. too much for your delicate sensibilities? Too big brotherish? What if they, gasp, assinged you a password and made you login to their network? Shouldn't that be wide open so that you aren't the least bit inconveninenced when you work? Maybe it's a big city thing, but if I go to any office in the city, and I don't belong there a securty guard has to announce me and assign me a temporary id card and then let me upstairs. It's go to know that if I ever go to DC I can just walk into any building I want at any time of day or night whether I belong there or not.

Suppose in your job your company sent you to new york to meet with clients. And when you got here to their office you were met by security guards, and they asked where you were going. And they made you take a photo and assign you a temporary id before you could go upstairs to see the clients would you refuse to meet the clients because they were violating your rights to wander around their building unmolested and unannounced.What if they make you walk through a detector or look in your bag along the way. And what if they have cameras up watching your every step?

JR: I am frequently in NY and I go to the desk in the lobby of my appointment's office building and give them my name and show them my ID and I get the tag and I go to the elevator and I push my floor. When I get off I announce myself and am offered coffee or a soft drink. I usually am made to wait a few minutes and them my appointment comes to the lobby and says "hello, sorry to make you wait." Then we go to his office and we conspire to make money. I could have an atom bomb in my briefcase but we ignore it and conspire together to make money. Because, you see, he knows I am coming to his office and he has his assistant phone the desk and they too know I am coming. Now, if some wily Muslim captured me and stole my wallet and my blackberry he could represent himself as me and go to the guys office at which point the Muslim would blow the building up and the security apparatus would again be insufficient. Or maybe he would meet with my guy and conspire to make money together. Maybe he would convert to christianity and then do a sophisticated search to find out who jr is and he and my client would come and find you and tell you to your face what a tedious fool you are. Or maybe not. But possibly. Unlikely but conceivable. They would certainly want to, I can assure you.

Michael wrote:x I am frequently in NY and I go to the desk in the lobby of my appointment's office building and give them my name and show them my ID and I get the tag and I go to the elevator and I push my floor.

Exactly, you have to go through a security protocol to get into the building. You do not determine the security protocol based on your absolute rights, the building determines the security protocol based on its security needs and threast it may face. You may personally think they are going to far in making you jump through hoops to get into that building, but its simply common sensical to have that security appartus set up to deal with people who shouldn't be in the building. or to determine who should or shouldn't be in the building. And if they make you jump through too many hoops you simply say you're not going to see your client. If you don't follow security protocol, security will treat you adversarily. And because you are a guest you are treated, to a certain degree as if you are a criminal (if you want to look at it that way). YOu have to justify why you are there. Back to the scans on airlines. The scan is no different htan the xray than the metal detector in that it is the means by which the airline determines who can or can't get onto a plane (because by going through the scanner you've ruled out that you're carrying things which might be dangerous were you to board a plane). You don't or shouldn't have an expectation of not even being searched. If that building you visited had an xray machine in the lobby and you set off the machine would security pat you down? wouldn't that be simpy good security? If you were instead visiting the president of the US, wouldn't his security detail, as a matter of course pat you down especilaly if you weren't especially well known? It's not immediately sexual assault merely because you get patted down.Well if we get on planes I don't know you and you don't know me and security hasn't met any of us,And you may be bringing things on board which may be harmful to me and I may be bringing things which may be harmful to you. Before the airlines let what etiher of us bring our stuff on board, which can impact not only our lives but THEIR airplane, they should go through the most effective screening possible that covers most known threats.And if they don't they are negligent. IF someone refused to go put their bag through an xray machine or refuses to take off their shoes or refuses to go through an xray scanner what should airline security do? Let them board a plane? I would think that if someone set off an alarm or refused to be scanned the next step would be they would be patted down. There certainly wouldn't be an assumption though that the person should be allowed to board an airplane.

and Michael if you visited your client and the week after your visit someone walked through security and gunned down some people in the building a whole lot of people would question the failures of said security protocols. So that the next time you went to the building you would probably have to walk thorugh metal detectors and have your bag checked. Each breach in security would only by default lead to another layer of security that would require you to jump through even more hoops to get to visit your clent. I just don't see how it could be otherwise. Which is exactly what nappened with the TSA. As each threat got through they added layers to the security that would address each threat. If you don't like the full body scanners you have to provide the TSA with another scanning technique that will allow them to clear passengers to get on a plane and which is the least invasive (but there will be no way that it is not invasive in some way) so that it doesn't happen again. Otherwise, if you are security, you are negligent. And if consumers didn't like those protocols, they could simply not fly.

Michael wrote: Now, if some wily Muslim captured me and stole my wallet and my blackberry he could represent himself as me and go to the guys office at which point the Muslim would blow the building up and the security apparatus would again be insufficient.

if that were to occur, they would then have to devise a way to prove that you were who you said you were beyond simply having you show an id card, because the last time they let someone in they blew up the building. You would have metal detactors and patdowns and they'd probalby make you give your thumb print. They would not smply rely on the same security. And they wouldn't make secuirty even less tight.

JR: No, they would look at the tapes and see that the impostor was not me but a muslim terrorist and so when they rebuilt the building they would only screen muslims, since muslims appear to be the only cohorts blowing up buildings. The building would not be owned by the govt. nor would the security and thus sensible measures and not stupid ones would be put in place.